Chief Justice - DaveShack
Judge Advocate - Black_Hole
Public Defender - GeorgeOP


Link to Constitution and code of laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132270)

Link to Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153321)

Judicial Procedures : being revised

Under construction...

Fair, Impartial, Public and Speedy

The court will conduct itself under the principles of fairness, impartiality, openness, and speed.


Fairness means that Justices must rule on the law without regard to differences in the positive and negative effects of their ruling with respect to individuals or groups of people.
Impartiality means that Justices must avoid ruling on a case which materially affects their present or future position. It does not however mean that a Justice must disregard experience or knowledge of the law, or abandon pre-established positions on the questions before the court.
Openness means that all official Court proceedings must occur in the forum, in the official Court thread or in other threads for that purpose. Justices do not give up their right to communicate outside official channels, but the substance of the Court must be open.
Speedy means that Justices must rule on each question presented to the court in as timely a manner as possible. The Chief Justice will set a target date for all rulings.
Recusals

Recusal from a specific case is at the sole discretion of each justice. If a justice wishes to be recused from a specific case the President will be asked to appoint apro tempore justice for that specific case. The President's appointment is subject to confirmation by the remaining justices. It is not necessary for the Public Defender to recuse himself from Citizen Complaints accepted against him since he is the Public Defender after all. Likewise the Judge Advocate need not recuse himself from Citizen Complaints he files since he is the nation's prosecutor. If a Citizen Complaint is accepted against the Judge Advocate, the Chief Justice will assume the Judge Advocate's duies for that specific case. If a Citizen Complaint is accepted against the Chief Justice the Judge Advocate will assume the duties of the Chief Justice for that case.

Judicial Reviews
Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. A concurring opinion of at least two of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Chief Justice shall review each request for merit. If the Chief Justice declines the request, either of the other two Justices may accept the request and override the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request in the court docket.

Reviews of a proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law including all changes to made to, and deletions to be made from, existing laws; and a link to the discussion thread of the proposed law. The proposed law must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. Reviews of proposed laws that meet these criteria will be added to the court docket by the Chief Justice.

Decisions or rulings on judicial reviews shall include answers to the question(s) posed (in the case of existing laws) or an indication that conflicts have or haven't been found with existing law (in cases of proposed laws). In the case where a conflict is found with existing law, all conflicts must be identified, to simplify and expedite the ability of the sponsor of a proposed law to resubmit with corrections. Concurring decisions or rulings by at least two justices will resolve a judicial review. Any justice can request clarification of another justice's decision or ruling.

All reviews must be finished by the end of the term if at all possible. The Chief Justice may defer a Judicial Review to the next term if it is filed less than 72 hours before the end of this term.

Citizen Complaints
Citizen complaints are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. Citizen Complaints shall be completed by the end of the term, unless the Judiciary finds this to be impossible, in which case the next term’s court may finish the investigation. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint shall have the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender shall be tasked with defending each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent, or if the accused prefers to defend him/herself..

At any time during a citizen complaint, the prosecution (and person making the request) and defense (and accused) may agree to drop the case and implement an alternative agreed to solution, provided the Chief Justice concurs. Likewise, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation.

Review
Each requested Citizen Complaint will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all three Justices determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

Trial
The Judge Advocate or Chief Justice will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

Once the at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice or Judge Advocate can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

Sentencing
If a citizen under investigation during a Citizen Complaint has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:
Suspension from Demogame
Removal from Office (if applicable)
Public Apology
Final Warning
Warning
Abstain Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice or Judge Advocate will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread and may be reposted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of a suspension is to be determined by the Judiciary, with the required consent of the moderators.

Changes to Judicial Procedures
The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a concurring decision of at least two justices.

Hear ye, Hear ye, the Term 6 Court is now in session. All those having business with the court are invited to enter and state their business. :hammer:

First on the docket is approval of the judicial procedures found in post #2 of this thread. Justices, please post your comments and/or approval within 2 days time. (preferably as soon as possible)

The Public Defender approves of the judicial procedures.

OK ...I am not great with legal speak but I know that our Cj promised a more "legal speak" friendly court. So here goes.......

I would like a JR to investigate the impeachment of the Tri as a unit and the lack of impeachment of judicial members.

Both of these seem to be contradictory to me. Other offices have a single member who is responsible for their own actions. The Tri being only able to be removed as a unit causes problems since a officials actions are not going to help them stay as a member if another member of the Tri is in need of impeachment. Essentially the Tri is unimpeachable unless people want to remove 2 good officials because of a bad one. Then with the judges you have no accountability and no way to remove a judge from the bench. The impeachment of the Tri would probably hurt the game is all three went.

The way I see it we covered all the bases...individual responsiblity for our actions, group reponsibility for the Tri and no reponsibilty for the judges. Since it is my belief that all citizens and offices are equal under the law.. we should strive to have equal impeachment proceeding under the law.

To our esteemed Judiciary:

I would like the Judiciary to take a look at the Term 6 Censor Procedures, found in the second post of this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172858), to make sure that they don't contradict our Constitution or Code of Laws. Any suggestions you have while you are at it are welcome as well. ;)

I would like to present to the court. Three new gavels for the new term. :)

Ok, is it after midnight GMT yet?

Checks to see if Cyc is hiding under the bench waiting to spring out and object...

Black_Hole hasn't posted an agreement to the Judicial Procedures, but technically we don't need a unanimous decision. If he thinks there is a problem then we can always amend them using the 2/3 concurrence rule.

Under the "common sense doctrine", actions taken by a Justice prior to the official beginning of the term can be considered as having taken place at 0001 GMT on the 1st. This changes the deadline for approving the Judicial Procedures, but also means that GeorgeOP's and my approval are valid.

I think we'll start off with a JR on the Constitution.

Case 6-1
Article B - Citizens
2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
c. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office

Question: Does Article B section 2c of the Constitution mean that a citizen has the right to be eligible to hold any office at a given point in time, or does it mean the right to hold some office?

Case 6-1 is open for citizen discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172991).

Tips hat to CivGeneral... Thanks. :hammer:

To our esteemed Judiciary:

I would like the Judiciary to take a look at the Term 6 Censor Procedures, found in the second post of this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172858), to make sure that they don't contradict our Constitution or Code of Laws. Any suggestions you have while you are at it are welcome as well. ;)
Review complete, comments posted. :D

OK ...I am not great with legal speak but I know that our Cj promised a more "legal speak" friendly court. So here goes.......

I would like a JR to investigate the impeachment of the Tri as a unit and the lack of impeachment of judicial members.


These questions refer to CoL section 7A and 7D:

Section 7 Impeachment

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole.

II. A No Confidence Vote requires a 6/10 (60%) majority to pass.

III. A successful No Confidence Vote shall remove the entire Triumvirate from office.

D) Impeachment of Judges
I. Judges may not be Impeached..

Although the Term 1 court already ruled that Section 7A is valid, it seems reasonable to allow another review.

For reference, here is a Constitution article which may be relevant.

Article C - Decision Making
Power of the People
All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
By Mandate as evidenced in a citizen's selection to hold office via the elective process.
By Constituency as evidenced by citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a public discussion.
By Opinion Poll in the form of the results of a non-binding poll
By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.
By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type
By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment
In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.
An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.
Citizen input has precedence over mandate.
If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail.
Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified.
A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
Initiative must always be allowed
No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution.
Case 6-2

Question: Does Section 7A of the Code of Laws conflict with the Constitution, particularily (but not limited to) Article C?

Case 6-3

Question: Does section 7D of the Code of Laws conflict with the Constitution, particularily (but not limited to) Article C?

It would have been nice to have a list of changes to the procedures, but I don't want to hold up the court.
So I approve the judicial procedures.

Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to reccomend that case 6-2 be declared to have no merit. It has already been ruled upon in term 1.
Official ruling on C4DG1JR3
By a 2-1 decision the court ruled that impeachment of the Triumvirate affects all members therein, and that there is no mechanism in place to allow impeachment of a single member of the Triumvirate.

robbo states no new legal evidence that would make the case any different. The reason it is brought up is because it is believed it isn't fair.

Here are some changes which were made in the Judicial Procedures from last term. I'm not 100% sure this is all of them, if you really want to have a complete difference report, I could cut & paste into files and run a compare.

1. Added the possibility of an out of court settlement.
At any time during a citizen complaint, the prosecution (and person making the request) and defense (and accused) may agree to drop the case and implement an alternative agreed to solution, provided the Chief Justice concurs.
2. Added preamble about the principles of fairness, impartiality, openness, and speed.

3. Required complete disclosure of conflicts between proposed laws and existing laws.
In the case where a conflict is found with existing law, all conflicts must be identified, to simplify and expedite the ability of the sponsor of a proposed law to resubmit with corrections.

It is true that case 6-2 is identical to the previous case. It seemed better to allow a chance for new evidence to be presented, in a spirit of being citizen friendly. If no legally relevant material is submitted, it can always be reclassified as no-merit with a reference back to the earlier case. Any problem with taking this approach? Generally, RL courts tend to re-answer the same question by citing precedent, to provide definitive closure to each case.

If this approach is acceptible to the JA and PD, we'll set a time limit of 48 hours from this post to substantiate an argument, with the advice that an easier path might be to resurrect the CoL amendment which was started in Term 1 and just change the law to be more fair.

I would further note that Article C.4 fairly clearly permits the current laws. That very clause was the core behind the ruling cited by Black_Hole.

I respectly request that the JR be noted as "No Merit". The situation that robboo raises may merit discussion and change, but the proper venue is NOT the courts, but the Citizen's Assembly through the discussion of an amendment for those areas. Indeed, such an amendment would be quite trivial to write and present for approval.

-- Ravensfire

I would echo Ravensfire's request. This Court has more important things to do than rehash rulings from a prior Court on sound Articles of the Constitution.

I would further note that Article C.4 fairly clearly permits the current laws. That very clause was the core behind the ruling cited by Black_Hole.

I respectly request that the JR be noted as "No Merit". The situation that robboo raises may merit discussion and change, but the proper venue is NOT the courts, but the Citizen's Assembly through the discussion of an amendment for those areas. Indeed, such an amendment would be quite trivial to write and present for approval.

-- Ravensfire

Yes, I put Article C.4 there for this exact reason. :D

My preference would have been to just rule with "no merit" to begin with, but I don't claim infallibility on every subject, hence my desire to give the opportunity for someone to find another Article that either prohibits CoL 7A and 7D, or conflicts with Article C4.

However, it would be just as easy for a new review to be filed citing the specific conflict as it would be to let this one dangle. Given that two three strong current and former Justices agree with my initial instinct to dismiss the case, I'm reclassifying case 6-2 as having no merit, with the advice to submit an amendment if a change is desired.

By the same logic, case 6-3 is also about a law which is expressly permitted by Article C.4, so that case is also reclassified as having no merit.

So to be clear...To separate impeachment of the Tri I need to write an amendment. AND to allow judges to be impeached I need to write another amendment.

IF so...any out of work judiciary want to help me craft such amendments.

Dear Judiciary,

My amendment to the Designated Players section has had ample discussion, and the mock poll has been posted for over 24 hours with no significant comments. Please review the amendment for its Constitutionality and post the amendment poll when ready.

You can find the amendment and mock poll in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172096

Thanks,
Sigma

Yes, I put Article C.4 there for this exact reason. :D

My preference would have been to just rule with "no merit" to begin with, but I don't claim infallibility on every subject, hence my desire to give the opportunity for someone to find another Article that either prohibits CoL 7A and 7D, or conflicts with Article C4.

However, it would be just as easy for a new review to be filed citing the specific conflict as it would be to let this one dangle. Given that two three strong current and former Justices agree with my initial instinct to dismiss the case, I'm reclassifying case 6-2 as having no merit, with the advice to submit an amendment if a change is desired.

By the same logic, case 6-3 is also about a law which is expressly permitted by Article C.4, so that case is also reclassified as having no merit.
I wouldn't declare 6-3 to have no merit. It hasn't been ruled upon before. Infact I believe judiciary members can be impeached. Their is a difference here. The triumvirate isn't unimpeachable, thus following article C, however the judiciary is unimpeachable violating article C.
So in short, I would rule 6-3 to have merit.

No, it really doesn't.

Article C defines the broad types of decisions that are possible. C.4 then allows lower laws to restrict or even do away with certain types of decisions. Note the first point in there - Initiative must always be allowed.

Essentially, we could actually do away with impeachments (recalls) entirely, and still be in compliance with Article 4. What we can't do is remove Initiatives - that MUST be permitted.

-- Ravensfire

Here are some changes which were made in the Judicial Procedures from last term.
Also, it was made clear that the Defendant has a right to defend himself. The old rules mentioned PD must represent him unless he appoins someone to defend him, and I wanted it clear that he can represent himself.

Unless someone can present new evidence or arguments that weren't brought forth from Term 1, I rule that 6-2 has no merit and should be removed from the docket.

Sigma's request for Judicial Review of an amendment on the DP Pool is accepted and designated case 6-4. The initial completion target for this review is 3 days, and citizens may comment on any legal issues with the amendment here in the Judiciary thread.

Several posts here and in other threads have set target time frames for citizen comment or rulings from the Court. While the Court strives for speedy resolution of all matters, this does not mean that any item should not receive full consideration. Target times may be extended on any reasonable request.

No, it really doesn't.

Article C defines the broad types of decisions that are possible. C.4 then allows lower laws to restrict or even do away with certain types of decisions. Note the first point in there - Initiative must always be allowed.

Essentially, we could actually do away with impeachments (recalls) entirely, and still be in compliance with Article 4. What we can't do is remove Initiatives - that MUST be permitted.

-- Ravensfire
wow, thats the second time I missed that part of the article, you would think I would learn...
Thanks for clearing that up ravensfire

wow, thats the second time I missed that part of the article, you would think I would learn...
Thanks for clearing that up ravensfire

Does that mean you're ok with 6-3 being decided as no-merit?

Does that mean you're ok with 6-3 being decided as no-merit?
yes I am
xcl

3. Required complete disclosure of conflicts between proposed laws and existing laws.
In the case where a conflict is found with existing law, all conflicts must be identified, to simplify and expedite the ability of the sponsor of a proposed law to resubmit with corrections.


This is a dangerous thing to implement and I see it as a backlash stemming from the Strider Amendment. I really see no point in subjecting the judiciary to going over every proposed amendment with a fine tooth comb. The judiciary is here to ensure that new laws do not conflict with established laws. Once a confllict is found the judiciary's job is done. The judiciary was not set up to be the law writers of our land. Justices can certainly help to draft laws but that should not be an official part of their duties.

No, it really doesn't.

Article C defines the broad types of decisions that are possible. C.4 then allows lower laws to restrict or even do away with certain types of decisions. Note the first point in there - Initiative must always be allowed.

Essentially, we could actually do away with impeachments (recalls) entirely, and still be in compliance with Article 4. What we can't do is remove Initiatives - that MUST be permitted.

-- Ravensfire

Article C.4 does NOT allow any of the decision types listed in earlier clauses to be done away with entirely. The misinterpretation of C.4 is one of the biggest problems we have. It is not a blanket safety valve clause that allows us to ignore other parts of the constitution. Recall is a constitutionally guaranteed decision type. Lower laws can specify the procedures to be followed in order to recall officials and these procedures can restrict the implementation of recalls but cannot do away with them. I've said more than once that the non-impeachability of the judiciary is unconstitutional. I think I also ruled in a JR that it was constitutional to recall a single member of the Tri (though that was a minority decison).

C.4 is a safety net for the citizen's initiative, and states no restrictions can be placed on the use of the initiative.

I've said more than once that the non-impeachability of the judiciary is unconstitutional. I think I also ruled in a JR that it was constitutional to recall a single member of the Tri (though that was a minority decison).

Yes, it was a minority decision. The majority disagreed with you, and accepted the law as constitutional using C.4.

If you don't like it, change it. Otherwise, respect the rulings as you expect others to respect the majority rulings you are a part of.

-- Ravensfire

The citizen discussion thread for case 6-1 has been open for several days, with the last substantial comment being approximately 3 days ago. Justices may now make any final statements or ask any questions they might have, or post their ruling.

The question as rephrased by JA Black_Hole and then re-rephrased by me:

Does Article B section 2c of the constitution give all citizens the right of eligibility to hold all offices at all times?

Stated in the negative, does Article B Section 2c of the Constitution prohibit lower forms of law from placing restrictions on the number or type of office a given citizen may be eligible to hold at a given point in time?

For reference, the original case and Constitution Article is reprinted here. The bold italic is a "typo" pointed out by Black_Hole in the discussion thread.

Case 6-1
Article B - Citizens
2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
c. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office

Question: Does Article B section 2c of the Constitution mean that a citizen has the right to be eligible to hold any office at a given point in time, or does it mean the right to be eligible to hold some office?

This is a dangerous thing to implement and I see it as a backlash stemming from the Strider Amendment. I really see no point in subjecting the judiciary to going over every proposed amendment with a fine tooth comb. The judiciary is here to ensure that new laws do not conflict with established laws. Once a confllict is found the judiciary's job is done. The judiciary was not set up to be the law writers of our land. Justices can certainly help to draft laws but that should not be an official part of their duties.


Is this dangerous because it forces the Judiciary to do a good job, or because it will help would-be lawmakers make changes that they would find impossible to make without this type of citizen-friendly service?

On the Judicial workload question, we members of this term's court can decide ourselves whether we will feel too much burden from fully reviewing proposed laws, to the best of our ability. My fellow Justices can agree to remove this provision from the procedures, if they think it's too much trouble.

The alternative, which was very successfully exercised by prior courts, of picking at proposed laws just long enough to find a (questionable) conflict is bad for the game. It leaves the poor citizens to flop around in a vain attempt to anticipate and satisfy all possible judicial whims. It is far better to tell the citizens exactly what is wrong with a proposed law, and thus the opportunity to fix all problems in one iteration, than it is to tie up proposed legislation ad infinitum.

On Donsig's objection to using Constituion Article C.4 to "eliminate a decision type", I would like to point out Article C.2, with emphasis added.

C.2 The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.

This is a case where the Citizens had a very specific intent, and they very wisely ratified a Constitution text which says exactly what the citizens wanted, in words with meanings which clearly state that intent.

The power of the people can be delegated. This does not say must be delegated. Under this Constitution, we could ratify a Code of Laws which does not delegate any of the powers of the people. Such a Democracy would be a pure Democracy, in which every single decision must be made by the people, e.g. polled. Well, technically that would be the one decision type that is required, Initiative.

In one or more of the following ways. This clearly means that a lower form of law does not have to implement every decision type listed. In fact, it must only implement one of the decision types -- Initiative, as listed in C.4.

The intent is there, a very precise wording is there. It says what it means, and means what it says.

Public Defender Ruling on JR 6-1 : Right to hold an office

Article B2c of our constitution gives every citizen the right to hold office. However, it does not say that every citizen has a right to any office. More specifically, it only gives the right to be elgible to hold some office. As long as every citizen is elgible to hold some offical office, any restrictions in our Code of Laws are valid. For example, we could pass a law saying that GeorgeOP can only be Public Defender, or we could pass a law saying that only GeorgeOP can be Public Defender. Both laws would still allow every citizen to be elgible to hold some office.

As long as every citizen has the ability to be elgible for at least one office, any restrictions in the Code of Laws are valid under the Constitution.

Judge Advocate Ruling on JR 6-1
Article B.2.C of the constitution:
The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
Gives all citizens the right to be eligible for public office.

There are two restricitons placed on this in the constitution:
Section 6 Term Limits

A) Term Limits
I. Holder of Triumvirate and Cabinet offices are affected by term limits.

II. No one may be elected to the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office for more that two terms consecutively.

III. After serving two terms in the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office a Citizen must wait at least one term before running for the same office but may run for and hold any other office.


B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.


The constitutional law is written generally, so the article guarantees all citizens to be eligible for all offices. For example, does being able to hold one office fulfill your right? In my opinion the answer is no. The idea of being able to hold public office is to be able to hold whatever office you desire.
Code of Laws amendments modify your right to be eligible to hold office and as such these restrictions are unconstitional.
The Code of Laws may not modify constitutional rights in any way unless the constituiton specifically allows lower forms of law to modify it.

Conclusion
Article 6 (Term Limits) and Article 8.B of the CoL (Restrictions on holding multiple offices) are unconstitutional.
And all other code of laws amendments that may be ratified or that are currently in the code of laws that modify a citizen's right to hold office are unconstitutional.

While you're at it, I've got another question:
Section 6 Term Limits

A) Term Limits
I. Holder of Triumvirate and Cabinet offices are affected by term limits.

II. No one may be elected to the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office for more that two terms consecutively.

III. After serving two terms in the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office a Citizen must wait at least one term before running for the same office but may run for and hold any other office.

It clearly says "Elected". If the situation were this way: Someone has been Minister of Science for 2 terms, then he may not be elected again the next term according to the current Code of Laws. But if there's noone running for the position, may he be appointed by the president after election time?

The question before the court is whether Article B section 2 gives every citizen the right to be eligible for every office at all times.

Article B - Citizens
2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
c. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office

Looking strictly at the Constitution excerpt as written, there is nothing here saying a citizen must be eligible to hold any public office. If the framers of the Constitution had wanted this section to be interpreted in that way, they would have written this section to say

c. The Right to be Eligible to hold any Public Office

Looking at Democracy Game precedent, many, perhaps even most, prior games have restricted the number of offices a citizen can hold at one time. The framers of this Constitution were aware of this, and they took special care to allow for such a possibility by intentionally leaving the word any out of the article. Likewise, the Real Life Democratc (loosely defined) governments which the Democracy Game uses as its foundation also allow and often require restrictions on eligibility for specific offices. For example, the United States Constitution specifically restricts eligibility for the office of President to citizens, and even more strictly to native born citizens.

I therefore find that:

The requirement of Article B section 2C is satisfied by any lower form of government which ensures that every citizen is eligible to hold some office at any given point in time, except for restrictions placed by forum rules.

The Court has ruled 2-1 that Article B section 2c requires that every citizen must be eligible to hold some office, but that this does not extend to the point of requiring every citizen to be eligible to hold any office.

While you're at it, I've got another question:


It clearly says "Elected". If the situation were this way: Someone has been Minister of Science for 2 terms, then he may not be elected again the next term according to the current Code of Laws. But if there's noone running for the position, may he be appointed by the president after election time?

Can I have a JR on this? Possibly before the end of this term.

Dutchfire's request for a JR is accepted. I'm a little busy right now, will update with the law citation and formal question after a while, unless one of my colleagues gets to it first. ;)

Yes, it was a minority decision. The majority disagreed with you, and accepted the law as constitutional using C.4.

If you don't like it, change it. Otherwise, respect the rulings as you expect others to respect the majority rulings you are a part of.

-- Ravensfire

Are you suggesting that because I'm in the minority I should either change my opinion to conform with the majority or remain silent on the issue? I don't see expressing my opinion as disrespecting majority rulings.

Is this dangerous because it forces the Judiciary to do a good job, or because it will help would-be lawmakers make changes that they would find impossible to make without this type of citizen-friendly service?

Your opinion of a good job by the judiciary and my opinion of a good job by the judiciary are two different things. The judiciary was never meant to be a law writing body. Making it a law writing body is dangerous because it puts the judiciary in the position of stake holder where certain proposed amendments are concerned. It is not a good idea to have the people judging whether proposed laws conflict with current laws also be the main ones writing the laws. (That's as bad as having a CJ decide whether his appointment as CJ was valid. :rolleyes: )

It is also a bad idea simply because we do not all agree on what constitutes a conflict. (If we did we wouldn't need a judiciary, would we?) We've already had a couple minority decisions which shows right there that citizens do not magically beging to think alike just because they sit on the bench at the same time. That does not even take into account the differences citizens have had with the judiciary.

Far from it, donsig.

You do, however, expect others to respect certain majority rulings while you do not respect other majority rulings.

-- Ravensfire

What is next on the docket? We made one decision and I'd like to move on to the next one.

Case 6-4, this amendment review requested by Sigma, is next.

Dear Judiciary,

My amendment to the Designated Players section has had ample discussion, and the mock poll has been posted for over 24 hours with no significant comments. Please review the amendment for its Constitutionality and post the amendment poll when ready.

You can find the amendment and mock poll in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172096

Thanks,
Sigma

In summary, the Designated Player amendment which is being reviewed as 6-4 makes the following changes:


Specifies that ties in the play order are broken by the first accepted nomination.
Authorizes the President to appoint additional Designated Players, subject to a confirmation poll.
Allows a Designated Player to be removed, for cause, using a Recall procedure.
Replaces the Chain of Command system by automatic play session cancellation.
Places time limits within which the next play session must be scheduled.
Provides a mechanism for players to be skipped when they miss deadlines.
Allows a Triumvirate member to request a play session to be rescheduled.
Allows a DP to reschedule a play session.
Allows a play session to be cancelled.
Adds organization of the Designated Player Pool as a duty of the President.


This review is open for citizen comments on the topic of conflicts with existing laws while the Justices perform their review. Comments in favor of or opposition to the amendment should be made in the discussion thread, or if it is ruled to be valid for ratification, in the ratification poll thread.

The target timeframe for completing the review is 2 days from now.

Far from it, donsig.

You do, however, expect others to respect certain majority rulings while you do not respect other majority rulings.

-- Ravensfire

Actually, I don't see referring to a previous minority position as disrespectful towards the corresponding majority decision. I'm more impressed by rulings where each justice writes something different and includes reasoning than I am by rulings which look like regurgitated talking points devoid of reason. Contrary to appearances, the strongest kind of ruling is the 2-1 variety because it shows another viewpoint was considered and repudiated by the majority of the court.

Your opinion of a good job by the judiciary and my opinion of a good job by the judiciary are two different things. The judiciary was never meant to be a law writing body. Making it a law writing body is dangerous because it puts the judiciary in the position of stake holder where certain proposed amendments are concerned.

Asking the Justices to find all the conflicts they can in a proposed amendment is not making them a "law writing body". The ruling does not have to include what a law must say to be legal, it merely needs to point out what conflicts there are, and give a reason that it's a conflict.


It is also a bad idea simply because we do not all agree on what constitutes a conflict.

True enough -- but the full ruling by the court will only include those conflicts that a majority of the Justices agree with.

Public Defender Ruling on JR 6-4 : The Designated Player Code of Laws Ammendment

I find that this ammendment conforms to the constitution and can be sent to the Citizen's Assembly.

No offense to you Dave or any member of the Judiciary, but the case for my amendment (case 6-4) was opened on June 1st, with a target completion date of 3 days later. It was then refocused on (as it is the only case open) on June 7th after the ruling on case 6-1, with a target date of 2 days later. One justice has posted his ruling, with the other two remaining silent. There has also been zero discussion on the amendment.

If you can, please expedite this process. I was hoping to have the amendment ratified by now.

Thanks. :)

The purpose of the delay was to provide time for the Judge Advocate to rule prior to moving on, but sufficient time has passed.

I have thoroughly reviewed the proposed amendment for Case 6-4, on laws pertaining to the Designated Player Pool. The proposed changes do not conflict with any existing laws, and the proper procedure has been followed. The amendment may proceed to a confirmation vote.

The Public Defender having ruled, the necessary two Justices have agreed the amendment may proceed to a vote. The Judge Advocate may still post a ruling to be included in the official log.

Judge Advocate Ruling - JR 6-4

Sorry it was a moderately large amendment, however I found no conflicts with existing law and the procedures defined in the Code of Laws for amendment were followed. This amendment may now go onto a vote by the citizen assembly

Asking the Justices to find all the conflicts they can in a proposed amendment is not making them a "law writing body". The ruling does not have to include what a law must say to be legal, it merely needs to point out what conflicts there are, and give a reason that it's a conflict.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly IF we had a limit on the size of an amendment. Making a rule that says the judiciary MUST find all conflicts in a proposed amendment (and do it within three days) when we allow the whole CoL to be rewritten as an amendment is not a good idea. The bigger the amendment, the more potential conflicts there are and the more time needed to find them all. It's great to strive for that but it need not be mandatory.

About my question in posts 35 and 38 in this thread:
It just occured to me that I was appointed in term 5, not elected because I couldn't nominate myself. So does that mean I can get re-elected next term?

Case 6-5 is now up for consideration.

While you're at it, I've got another question:

Section 6 Term Limits

A) Term Limits
I. Holder of Triumvirate and Cabinet offices are affected by term limits.

II. No one may be elected to the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office for more that two terms consecutively.

III. After serving two terms in the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office a Citizen must wait at least one term before running for the same office but may run for and hold any other office.


It clearly says "Elected". If the situation were this way: Someone has been Minister of Science for 2 terms, then he may not be elected again the next term according to the current Code of Laws. But if there's noone running for the position, may he be appointed by the president after election time?

Section 6.A.II seems pretty straightforward, and in my opinion would have stood alone and resulted in a "no merit" if Section 6.A.III were not present. However, 6.A.III seems to contain an internal conflict which is worthy of an official judicial review.

The relevant law is Section 6 and Article B which was just reviewed as case 6-1.

Question: Does Section 6.A.III of the Code of Laws prohibit a citizen from holding the same office for more than two terms, or does it merely "clarify" the prohibition in section 6.A.II on a citizen running for the same office more than two terms?

Public Defender Ruling on JR 6-5 : Running for Office

The wording says "no one may be elected" and "wait at least one term before running for". It does not say that the person can not hold the office, just that they can't run or be elected to office. So if Person X is voted into office for terms 1 and 2, he can't run for that office again. But he can be appointed to that office in term 3 if it becomes vacant.

And according to you, George, if he was appointed in term 1, he may be elected in term 2 and 3?
Right?

To me it would appear that the law prohibits one from seeking election to an office which one has held for two consecutive terms regardless of the mechanism which resulted in one holding it.

i.e. if Joe Bloggs is appointed Secretary of State in term one and is then elected to the same office in term two he cannot run for SecState in term three.

That no mention of appointment to office is made suggests to me that Mr Bloggs could technically legitimately be appointed if the office of SecState was unfilled in term 3, but that it would be closer to the spirit of the law to select a different appointee if one of suitable quality could be found.

Not that my interpretation matters a damn here, but I figured I might as well offer my tuppence while passing through. :)

Please allow me to direct the Judiciary to the following threads, where a debate about term limits and partial terms took place several months ago. They were initiated by Methos, who intended to write a CoL amendment but never got around to it. Even though these ideas were never amended into our CoL, they represented the view of the people at the time, and I'd like the Judiciary to keep them in mind when making their ruling.

Discussion Thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165337
Opinion Poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165641

Please allow me to direct the Judiciary to the following threads, where a debate about term limits and partial terms took place several months ago. They were initiated by Methos, who intended to write a CoL amendment but never got around to it. Even though these ideas were never amended into our CoL, they represented the view of the people at the time, and I'd like the Judiciary to keep them in mind when making their ruling.

Discussion Thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165337
Opinion Poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165641
it doesn't matter what the citizens think about term limits, its about what the law says about term limits

The citizens can vote on a proposal to change the law like the one presented...so what they think ultimately matters.

The citizens can vote on a proposal to change the law like the one presented...so what they think ultimately matters.
what they think about term limits doesn't matter for this JR, of course they can change the law if they wish, but we don't base rulings on what people want

The public opinion at the time a law was written could be relevant in terms of establishing intent when the interpretation is in doubt, but current public opinion per se is not something we want the judiciary to base rulings on. It is quite valid for a citizen to offer an interpretation of what the law says or was intended to say along with analysis or evidence which suggests a ruling for one side or the other.

And according to you, George, if he was appointed in term 1, he may be elected in term 2 and 3?
Right?
No. Section III says "After serving two terms". If you are appointed in Term X, you served that term. If elected in Term X+1, you served that term. That qualifies as serving two terms, in which Section III prevents you from running again in Term X+2.

I didn't wait for discussion on this because I am ruling on what the wording says, not how I or anyone else feels. Although I believe in some flexability in the Judiciary, this seems pretty black and white to me.

I know this will come as a surprise to many watchers of the Court, but the honorable Public Defender's remarks have caused me to rethink my approach to case 6-5.

Bailiff! Smelling salts for Chief Justice Emeritus Mr Donsig please!! :lol:

No, really it's true. I had been planning to say that the law in question clearly and obviously applied only to being elected and serving the terms one is elected to, but now it seems to also apply to some other non-obvious scenarios. I'm going to hold off a bit and consider that idea some more.

I request a JR on the following amendment and mock poll.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169405&page=2

No, really it's true. I had been planning to say that the law in question clearly and obviously applied only to being elected and serving the terms one is elected to, but now it seems to also apply to some other non-obvious scenarios. I'm going to hold off a bit and consider that idea some more.

Thanks for the smelling salts. :D I am heartened to hear these words of yours. Some of us who have been around these demogames for a couple years now can clearly see the pitfalls of writing DG laws. No matter how much effort is put into foreseeing all, it is impossible to to plan for all those non-obvious scenarios. (That's a great term by the way.) The more scenarios planned for, the more complex the law must be. Since there are times when these non-obvious scenarios cannot wait for the next election cycle to resolve them we can only fall back on our laws as they are written. There are two ways, between elections, to handle unresolved non-obvious scenarios. One is through the judiciary and another is through citizen initiative. Unfortunately, in this DG, the judiciary was a bit marred when it refused to acknowledge and properly act on a conflict of interest. As for formal citizen's initiatives, that idea is a new addition to our constitution and, despite some attempts, was never really put to the test during this game. If that concept ever gets established we will have to work out what happens when a citizen initiative (with the force of law) is passed but conflicts with existing law.

Food for thought for future DGs.

Dear Judiciary,

As a concerned citizen, I would like to point out that our president Nobody has not been active in our forums. Though he's been busy reading and posting in the off-topic forums, he hasn't posted here since June 4th, two weeks ago.

On that note, I looked back and noticed that the Absence Investigations we used to remove some people from office were part of the judicial procedures, but have since disappeared. Should we put these back in, so we don't have to go through a full recall procedure when someone just disappears?

I request a JR on the following amendment and mock poll.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169405&page=2

:hmm: Is this the very same exact amendment that was reviewed (and found to conflict with current law) last term? Re-reviewing proposed amendments should certainly be a :nono: since it sets a precedent that future courts can revisit whatever past rulings they want! I am quite dismayed to see this request especially when the discussion thread shows the new JR request was instigated by the current CJ! I can see we still have not learned anything about conflict of interest in this game. [sigh]

Dear Judiciary,

As a concerned citizen, I would like to point out that our president Nobody has not been active in our forums. Though he's been busy reading and posting in the off-topic forums, he hasn't posted here since June 4th, two weeks ago.

On that note, I looked back and noticed that the Absence Investigations we used to remove some people from office were part of the judicial procedures, but have since disappeared. Should we put these back in, so we don't have to go through a full recall procedure when someone just disappears?
They were removed because they had no constitutional backing, so you would need to use the recall procedure

:hmm: Is this the very same exact amendment that was reviewed (and found to conflict with current law) last term? Re-reviewing proposed amendments should certainly be a :nono: since it sets a precedent that future courts can revisit whatever past rulings they want! I am quite dismayed to see this request especially when the discussion thread shows the new JR request was instigated by the current CJ! I can see we still have not learned anything about conflict of interest in this game. [sigh]
I agree, the amendment was denied 3-0 last term, and the authors haven't fixed the problems.
Mr. CJ please rule this JR to have no merit

Sigma..if you recall the president you have to recall the Tri( nobody, Rihiter and myself). I tried to get a JR for this BUT it seems its OK to protect a person who doesnt show up for his office with our constitution but its OK to impeach a member of the Tri( ME) who has done his job since the term started in order to remove a bad office holder. Seems there is no constitutional protection for good officials..only those who dont show up. This would also take roughly 8 to 10 days to get a new tri...

Pleae go forward with the recall...maybe finally our judges migth consider weather Rihiters and My rights were violated and decalre this law unconstituional. I think I even asked for help writing a replacement law...but none was forth coming.

So just let Nobody stay away and we can go without him...we havent really needed him yet anyway. Just everyone remember this next time a person shows up for an office that hasnt contributed the previous term.

I agree, the amendment was denied 3-0 last term, and the authors haven't fixed the problems.
Mr. CJ please rule this JR to have no merit

Never mind I found it( i was looking at the orginal submitted to you and the one I refernced. I thougth there were changes.)

I agree, the amendment was denied 3-0 last term, and the authors haven't fixed the problems.
Mr. CJ please rule this JR to have no merit

This court has ruled in case 6-1 that restrictions on the right to be eligible to hold an office are allowed. Since the previous ruling on this amendment was based solely on the idea that restrictions to be eligible to hold an office are not allowed, it logically follows that the amendment needs to be re-reviewed to see if there are any other conflicts with current law.

If a citizen wanted the amendment text to be changed before it was resubmitted, then the suggested change should have been raised in the amendment thread.

Robboo's request is accepted as case 6-6.

Donsig claims a potential conflict of interest because I initiated the original amendment. Having an opinion on a subject doesn't by itself reflect a conflict of interest. If I had something to gain, then there would be the possibility of a conflict, but there is no demonstratable gain from reviewing it. It is still possible that the citizens might not ratify the amendment, and if it is ratified it merely affects future events. It is not even clear that the court won't find some other conflict and rule it as ineligible on some other grounds.

As for courts overturning the results of prior courts, that happens all the time in real life and there is no reason not to expect it to happen in this game. The U.S. Supreme Court just overturned itself, on the issue of no-knock search warrants, saying that police who fail to knock and pause might be subject to civil or even criminal charges if the urgency of the case turns out not to justify speedy entry, but that evidence obtained in this way should not be automatically excluded. The previous ruling was for automatically excluding the evidence.

As I've said many times, very few Democracy Game decisions should ever be considered permanent. There are some things we won't do, like reloading a save, but when it comes to humans making decisions we pretty much always allow that decision to change.

The role of the Judiciary in reviewing laws is to help the people by ensuring new laws aren't so flawed that they can't be implemented without an immediate JR, not to prevent the people from changing laws. We should allow all but the amendments with the very worst legal conflicts to get a fair vote by the people, and not act as the committee to say no.

On the issue of Nobody's absense from the office of President, I suggest looking at the proposed amendment on vacancies and appointments. You will find that the procedure to declare an office vacant is addressed by that amendment, if only the people are allowed to vote on it.

I will, of course, be quite interested to hear arguments disclosing any newly discovered conflicts between the amendment and current law.

If we can please have a ruling from the Judge Advocate on case 6-5, we can complete that review.

Judge Advocate's Ruling on JR#6-5
6.A.III of the CoL does not restrict citizens from holding office more than two terms but does not allow citizens to run for an office after holding it for two terms. So a citizen could theoretically be appointed to an office for an infinite number of terms and still not violate this law. However after holding an office (doesn't matter how citizen got into office) for two terms, a citizen may not run for office, but could be appointed.

The law in question places two restrictions on eligibility to be a candidate for an office. It does not place any restrictions on holding that office for more than two terms.

No citizen may be a candidate for the same office in three consecutive elections.
No citizen may be a candidate for an office after holding that office in any part of two or more consecutive terms, by any means.


The court has ruled 3-0 that Section 6.A of the Code of Laws places a restriction on eligibility to be elected for an office, but that it does not restrict eligibility to hold that same office.

Donsig claims a potential conflict of interest because I initiated the original amendment. Having an opinion on a subject doesn't by itself reflect a conflict of interest. If I had something to gain, then there would be the possibility of a conflict, but there is no demonstratable gain from reviewing it. It is still possible that the citizens might not ratify the amendment, and if it is ratified it merely affects future events. It is not even clear that the court won't find some other conflict and rule it as ineligible on some other grounds.

I agree that having an opinion on something does not constitute a conflict of interest. But you have more than an opinion about this one DaveShack. I would even hesitate to say that judiciary members cannot initiate JRs. But in this particular instance, when you have loudly proclaimed that the last court was WRONG and then you ask someone else to ask for a JR on the very same law so a court that you head can re-review it. Under these circumstances I have no qualms what-so-ever about raising the conflict of interest arguement. You're trying to railroad this amendment through and you're trying to use your position as CJ to do it. I'll call that a conflict of interest any day. The fact that you are trying to accept the case even after robboo withdrew it in post #71 of this very thread convinces me even more of this.

I urge you to drop this case now. Change the proposal (preferably by removing reference to the 72 hours waiting period) and then ask for a JR yourself - that would be appropriate.

I agree that having an opinion on something does not constitute a conflict of interest. But you have more than an opinion about this one DaveShack. I would even hesitate to say that judiciary members cannot initiate JRs. But in this particular instance, when you have loudly proclaimed that the last court was WRONG and then you ask someone else to ask for a JR on the very same law so a court that you head can re-review it. Under these circumstances I have no qualms what-so-ever about raising the conflict of interest arguement. You're trying to railroad this amendment through and you're trying to use your position as CJ to do it. I'll call that a conflict of interest any day. The fact that you are trying to accept the case even after robboo withdrew it in post #71 of this very thread convinces me even more of this.

I urge you to drop this case now. Change the proposal (preferably by removing reference to the 72 hours waiting period) and then ask for a JR yourself - that would be appropriate.

I didn't read post #71 as withdrawing the case. If that was indeed the intent, then we shouldn't proceed with it.

It would also be in order for a citizen to make a desired change to the amendment proposal and resubmit it for review. If that happened, such a review would likely be accepted in lieu of the currently pending one. As you said yourself, it wouldn't be as appropriate for a Justice to legislate so I would feel more comfortable if someone who actually wants to change the law goes ahead and does it. Care to take up that offer? ;)

As you said yourself, it wouldn't be as appropriate for a Justice to legislate so I would feel more comfortable if someone who actually wants to change the law goes ahead and does it. Care to take up that offer? ;)

I would do that if it would prevent the passage of the amendment we already found conflicts with. I would not do so as someone who wants to change the law. The law, as it stands and has been interpreted, is fine with me.

I would do that if it would prevent the passage of the amendment we already found conflicts with. I would not do so as someone who wants to change the law. The law, as it stands and has been interpreted, is fine with me.

Sorry, terminology problem... :lol:

I meant someone who wants the proposed amendment changed. ;)

BTW your proposed change of just not having a time specified at all would be fine with me. My objection is to unnecessary delays of any kind. What's bothered me the most about all of this is that we had a delay in declaring that delays are needed, followed by a delay in approving an amendment to clarify when delays are needed, followed by yet another delay in approving that same amendment. The whole past 3 terms has been one delay after another, all of which have been unnecessary.

Sorry, terminology problem... :lol:

I meant someone who wants the proposed amendment changed. ;)

BTW your proposed change of just not having a time specified at all would be fine with me. My objection is to unnecessary delays of any kind. What's bothered me the most about all of this is that we had a delay in declaring that delays are needed, followed by a delay in approving an amendment to clarify when delays are needed, followed by yet another delay in approving that same amendment. The whole past 3 terms has been one delay after another, all of which have been unnecessary.

Not really a terminology problem. The only change I really want in the amendment is for it to go away - which is what happened until you put the call out to have it re-reviewed and robboo took your bait. I see nothing wrong with the three day waiting period. I have no overwhelming desire to keep the waiting period either. I'm only offering to make a different proposal because I think it would be a shame if the judiciary were used to run the amendment through as is. What should be happening is someone who wants a change made should be proposing a change that hasn't already been nixed.

Here is the new proposal for filling vacancies. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4185619&postcount=26) We need to give it some time for discussion then we have to post a mock poll then we can request as ratification JR.

Thanks,
A Concerned Citizen

The ratification poll for the DP amendment has been closed for over a week now. Are we going to get the process finished?

I would like the following law reviewed:

---------------------------------------------------------
Text of section to be replaced.
Section 8 - Office Limits and Vacancies

A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time.

C) Vacancies
I. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.
II. Triumvirate Vacancies IIA. If there is a Vacancy in the Triumvirate, the President shall nominate a citizen to that office. If the Presidency is Vacant, the Secretary of State, or Secretary of War if the Secretary of State is also Vacant, shall nominate a citizen to that office. The citizen must accept the nomination prior any further steps. IIB. The Judiciary shall confirm the appointment. If confirmed, the citizen takes office immediately. If not confirmed, a different citizen must be nominated. IIC. The nominee may be any citizen that does not currently hold a Triumvirate or Judicial position. If the nominee holds another office, they must resign immediately upon confirmation. IID. This appointment may not be challenged by a confirmation poll. III. Cabinet Vacancies IIIA. The President must offer the position to the Deputy, if there is one. IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office. IIIC. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll. IV. Governor Vacancies IVA. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office. IVB. If there is no Governors Council, the Minister of Interior must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Minister of Interior within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Minister of Interior may appoint any citizen to the office. V. Judicial Vacancies VA. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office. VB. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll. VI. All vacancy appointments which are subject to a confirmation poll are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority. Note: section VIA is a previous amendment which has been posted in the constitution / CoL thread but has not been edited into the CoL.
VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office within 48 hours of the appointment. This must be a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 3 days. If the poll closes with more no votes than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term. The appointee holds the office and is free to exercize the full powers of the office until such time as the appointment is reversed. VIB. A Citizen who holds office may apply for a new office before the 72 hour waiting period provided they write in their application that they will resign from their current office. That citizen does not have to resign until the provisional period passes. VII. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

---------------------------------------------------------
Text of section to be added in place of the above original text.
Section 8 - Office Limits and Vacancies

A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time.
III. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

C) Vacancies

An office is vacant if any of the following conditions is met:
No candidates accept a nomination for the office during elections
The current office holder resigns.
The current office holder is impeached / recalled.
The current office holder is removed from office as the result of judicial action.

D. Filling of Vacancies

A vacant office must be filled via the first method in this list which applies to the situation.

A deputy exists for the vacant office: the deputy is automatically installed as the new officeholder.
The office of President is not vacant: the President appoints a citizen to the vacant office.
The office of Secretary of State is not vacant: the Secretary of State appoints a citizen to the vacant office.
The office of Secretary of War is not vacant: the Secretary of War appoints a citizen to the vacant office.
The office of Censor is not vacant: the Censor appoints a citizen to the vacant office.
The office of Minister of the Interior is not vacant: the Minister of the Interior appoints a citizen to the vacant office.
The office of Minister of Culture is not vacant: the Minister of Culture appoints a citizen to the vacant office.
The office of Minister of the Science is not vacant: the Minister of the Science appoints a citizen to the vacant office.
The office of Director of Intelligence is not vacant: the Director of Intelligence appoints a citizen to the vacant office.

E. Confirmation Polls

Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a vacant office within 48 hours of the appointment. This must be a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 3 days. If the poll closes with more no votes than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term. The appointee holds the office and is free to exercise the full powers of the office until such time as the appointment is reversed.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Mock poll. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4207096&postcount=37)

Discussion thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169405)

[]Thank you.[/i]

The ratification poll for the DP amendment has been closed for over a week now. Are we going to get the process finished?

Technically, the process as recorded in the law was finished, however I did copy it into the Constitution/CoL thread and posted a request to edit the CoL.

Donsig's request is accepted and replaces the text of case 6-6 as a new version of the amendment.

Although the 24 hours for the mock poll have not passed, I see no reason not to review the law in parallel with the mandatory waiting period for comments. At worst, if there were a substantial change proposed by the citizens, the Judiciary would need to reconsider. At best, we shave unnecessary delay off the time to get this amendment before the citizens.

My fellow Justices may rule on the new amendment as early as they like.

The effective time of the amendment would be upon its ratification. Any appointments made after that time would be subject to the new law, regardless of whether the vacancy predated the amendment.

I approve the mock poll. Let it procede to a real poll.

Urgent Question: Does the new ammendment apply to my current TC? Can i reschedueal it?

This new ammendment has yet to be voted on by the public. It is still a couple of steps away from being law. You will have to use the current CoL. But I do urge everyone, including my fellow justices, to remember that sometimes RL intrudes itself onto this game and to be flexable if some small rules are stretched.

I think it's already been added. Check the CoL

You're right. I was thinking of the Vacancy bill that's working it's way through the system. The DP bill is finished and you must follow it. My mistake.

I have reviewed the proposed amendment on vacancies, case 6-6, and find no conflicts.

Two of three justices having ruled that the amendment may proceed, it will now go to a ratification vote. Justice Black_hole may still choose to rule on it if desired.

Although I believe these articles are unconstituional:
A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time.
III. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.
The court has ruled they are not in a previous ruling, so I this amendment has no conflicts with the constitution and may proceed to polling.